Search

Resilience is situated at the core of the World Health Organization European policy framework for health and well‐being and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Resilience refers to how effectively a person, group, or system deals with and recovers from challenging situations. In this paper resilience refers to the capacity of a health care professional to manage complex issues and adapt to situations successfully. This brief paper provides explicit knowledge for strengthening personal resilience in health care using the Ottawa Charter framework as a guide. Developing a resilient health care workforce should address all five Ottawa Charter areas of action, should involve multiple stakeholders, and should incorporate resilience strategies into everyday health care activities. The paper presents recommendations for future programs designed to build a resilient workforce that can provide high quality care in a sustainable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsThe health care sector is increasingly investing in social conditions, including availability of safe, reliable, and adequate transportation, that contribute to improving health.In this paper, we suggest ways to advance the impact of transportation interventions and highlight the limitations of how health services researchers and practitioners currently conceptualize and use transportation.Incorporating a transportation justice framework offers an opportunity to address transportation and mobility needs more comprehensively and equitably within health care research, delivery, and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health, social care, charitable and justice sectors are increasingly recognising the need for trauma‐informed services that seek to recognise signs of trauma, provide appropriate paths to recovery and ensure that services enable people rather than retraumatise. Foundational to the development of trauma‐informed services is collaboration with people with lived experience of trauma. Co‐production principles may provide a useful framework for this collaboration, due to their emphasis on lived experience, and intent to address power imbalances and promote equity. This article aims to examine trauma‐informed and co‐production principles to consider the extent to which they overlap and explore how to tailor co‐production approaches to support people who have experienced trauma. Methods: Bridging Gaps is a collaboration between women who have experienced complex trauma, a charity that supports them, primary care clinicians and health researchers to improve access to trauma‐informed primary care. Using co‐production principles, we aimed to ensure that women who have experienced trauma were key decision‐makers throughout the project. Through reflective notes (n = 19), observations of meetings (n = 3), interviews with people involved in the project (n = 9) and reflective group discussions on our experiences, we share learning, successes and failures. Data analysis followed a framework approach, using trauma‐informed principles. Results: Co‐production processes can require adaptation when working with people who have experienced trauma. We emphasise the need for close partnership working, flexibility and transparency around power dynamics, paying particular attention to aspects of power that are less readily visible. Sharing experiences can retrigger trauma. People conducting co‐production work need to understand trauma and how this may impact upon an individual's sense of psychological safety. Long‐term funding is vital to enable projects to have enough time for the establishment of trust and delivery of tangible results. Conclusions: Co‐production principles are highly suitable when developing trauma‐informed services. Greater consideration needs to be given as to whether and how people share lived experiences, the need for safe spaces, honesty and humility, difficult dynamics between empowerment and safety and whether and when blurring boundaries may be helpful. Our findings have applicability to policy‐making, funding and service provision to enable co‐production processes to become more trauma‐informed. Public Contribution: Bridging Gaps was started by a group of women who have experienced complex trauma, including addiction, homelessness, mental health problems, sexual exploitation, domestic and sexual violence and poverty, with a general practitioner (GP) who provides healthcare to this population, alongside a support worker from the charity One25, a charity that supports some of the most marginalised women in Bristol to heal and thrive. More GPs and healthcare researchers joined the group and they have been meeting fortnightly for a period of 4 years with the aim of improving access to trauma‐informed primary care. The group uses co‐production principles to work together, and we aim to ensure that women who have experienced trauma are key decision‐makers throughout our work together. This article is a summary of our learning, informed by discussion, observations and interviews with members of the group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsA large body of scientific work examines the mechanisms through which social determinants of health (SDOH) shape health inequities. However, the nuances described in the literature are infrequently reflected in the applied frameworks that inform health policy and programming.We synthesize extant SDOH research into a heuristic framework that provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a customizable template for conceptualizing and operationalizing key mechanisms that represent intervention opportunities for mitigating the impact of harmful SDOH.In light of scarce existing SDOH mitigation strategies, the framework addresses an important research‐to‐practice translation gap and missed opportunity for advancing health equity. Context: The reduction of health inequities is a broad and interdisciplinary endeavor with implications for policy, research, and practice. Health inequities are most often understood as associated with the social determinants of health (SDOH). However, policy and programmatic frameworks for mitigation often rely on broad SDOH domains, without sufficient attention to the operating mechanisms, and effective SDOH mitigation strategies remain scarce. To expand the cadre of effective SDOH mitigation strategies, a practical, heuristic framework for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers is needed that serves as a roadmap for conceptualizing and targeting the key mechanisms of SDOH influence. Methods: We conduct a critical review of the extant conceptual and empirical SDOH literature to identify unifying principles of SDOH mechanisms and to synthesize an integrated framework for conceptualizing such mechanisms. Findings: We highlight eight unifying principles of SDOH mechanisms that emerge from landmark SDOH research. Building on these principles, we introduce and apply a conceptual model that synthesizes key SDOH mechanisms into one organizing, heuristic framework that provides policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with a customizable template for conceptualizing and operationalizing the key SDOH mechanisms that represent intervention opportunities to maximize potential impact for mitigating a given health inequity. Conclusions: Our synthesis of the extant SDOH research into a heuristic framework addresses a scarcity of peer‐reviewed organizing frameworks of SDOH mechanisms designed to inform practice. The framework represents a practical tool to facilitate the translation of scholarly SDOH work into evidence‐based and targeted policy and programming. Such tools designed to close the research‐to‐practice translation gap for effective SDOH mitigation are sorely needed, given that health inequities in the United States and in many other parts of the world have widened over the past two decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]